CA: Negotiators fine-tune plan on greenhouse gas emissions (Will the Gubby sign AB32?)

Negotiations are intensifying between the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger over an ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez said he expects to introduce amendments next week on Assembly Bill 32 -- which would make California the first state to impose pollution caps on industries to combat global warming.

The Democratic leader said in an interview that he intends to address governance and enforcement concerns of environmentalists, business groups and the Schwarzenegger administration to pass the bill by the Aug. 31 close of the legislative session.

AB 32 aims to reduce California's global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 -- a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. Last year, California was the world's 12th-largest producer of greenhouse gases.

The bill has been opposed by an industry coalition. But other business groups, environmentalists and political leaders have rallied behind the bill, raising the likelihood the Republican governor will sign it.

Schwarzenegger, who is running for re-election, recently signed a unique state-nation global warming agreement with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to share information on solutions for reducing pollutants blamed for climate change.

The industry lobby remains opposed to the bill, believing it will send companies out of state. However, a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found bipartisan concern over global warming.

Next week, environmental groups supporting AB 32 will kick off a climate campaign in Sacramento by bringing in Nobel laureate economists and pro-environment business leaders and showing an HBO documentary on global warming, "Too Hot Not To Handle."

Next week, environmental groups supporting AB 32 will kick off a climate campaign in Sacramento by bringing in Nobel laureate economists and pro-environment business leaders and showing an HBO documentary on global warming, "Too Hot Not To Handle."

More melodrama from the Gore, Clinton, RF Kennedy econuts and the United Nations. This isn't a documentary--it's propaganda. The Too Hot Not To Handle website links to every enviro activist/racketeering website I can think of, and then some.

Too Hot Not to Handle
Heat waves. Melting glaciers. Rising sea levels. Catastrophic storms. Migrating viruses. Population displacement. Over the past 100 years, the mass consumption of fossil fuels, especially in America, has contributed to a dangerous warming of the earth that has adversely impacted the way we live. The cautionary documentary TOO HOT NOT TO HANDLE offers a guide to the effects of global warming in the United States.

They even offer resources to "Learn more about curriculum to use in the classroom and organizations" to indoctrinate "the children."

From CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL INSIDER, Vol. 20, No. 3; July 17, 2006
(which I can only access through google cache)

--snip

There are two bills currently before the Legislature, both authored (or partially authored) by Democratic leaders. AB 32, is authored by Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), while SB 1368 is authored by Senate President Pro-Tem Don Perata (D-Hayward). The Governor's usual allies in the business community have come out strongly against both bills claiming that they effectively impose a "growth cap" on the state's economy.

--snip

Opposition

Most of the state's major business groups are opposed to both bills. The California Chamber of Commerce has put the two bills on its list of "job killer" bills for 2006. On July 10, a coalition of these business groups, allied under the name Sustainable Environment and Economy for California (SEECalifornia), sent a letter to the bill's two authors outlining the reasons for their opposition to SB 32 [sic].

• The opponents argue that the bill has the potential to put California back into another "energy crisis" by forcing significant energy resources out of the market.
• They claim that meeting the emissions cap contemplated by the bill will require a reduction in the use of petroleum by 17% at the same time the state's population continues to expand. They contend that there is yet no viable alternative fuel to replace this loss.
• The opponents claim that the bill's cap is a "cap on growth" that will push jobs and businesses out of the state and discourage investment in the state's infrastructure. They also argue that the effect of the bill is likely to simply push production to neighboring states thereby negating the bill's supposed impact.
• Finally, the opponents raise the familiar argument that global warming is a global problem and that it little behooves the state to penalize itself if such rapidly growing economies as those in China and India refuse to take similar steps.

The opponents offer a series of suggested alternatives that include funding research in alternative fuels, siting LNG facilities, creating incentives for businesses to implement alternative energy strategies, and generally working with the U.S. government and international bodies to come up with a more comprehensive global solution.

The same coalition also sent a letter on June 28 outlining their objections to SB 1368. They complain that the performance standard required by the bill discriminates against coal, a relatively low-coast fuel. They also complain that the bill would place a significant amount of California's current power supply off limits to utilities for long-term contracts. In order to purchase such fuel utilities would have to use short term contracts, and would be unable to invest in even "clean coal plants." All of this would significantly increase the cost of power for both retail and business consumers.

From the same link (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL INSIDER), here is the stance being portrayed as the Governor's position:

The Governor's Position
Governor Schwarzenegger has taken no position himself on either of the proposed bills. However, on June 26 the Governor's new appointee as Cal/EPA Secretary Linda Adams issued a statement [PDF file] suggesting that "AB 32 could be an important tool" in meeting Gov. Schwarzenegger's aggressive greenhouse gas targets." She vowed to work with the bill's authors in developing a mutually acceptable approach. Adams then laid down the components that the Administration would like to see in AB 32.
• She supports the idea of a cap to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
• She also supports the mandatory reporting of emissions from the largest industrial sectors (oil and gas extraction, oil refining, electric power, cement manufacturing, and solid waste landfills).
• She wants the reduction program established by the bill to be managed by an "umbrella entity" instead of just by the ARB.
• She wants the bill to contain an "economic safety valve" to ensure that the emission reduction program is "technologically feasible, and is not detrimental to the California economy."
This latter requirement has raised alarm bells with environmental groups who are concerned that it will create a huge loophole that can be exploited by business groups to avoid compliance with the emission limits required to implement the cap.

If there is a possibility that it is not "technologically feasible" (which is quite obvious!), why the #%^&$* would anyone in their right mind accept legislating it???

Who the heck cares if it is managed by the ARB or an "umbrella entity," destructive law is destructive law!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.